leaving children on their own?

poet123

mumps wrote: »

I have got the certificate to prove it.

I'm sure you have a certificate.

poet123

mumps wrote: »

Bit low. New level.

Not at all low, they were negligent parents in my view, and I don't apologise for holding or expressing that view. And it is pertinent to this thread.

mumps

poet123 wrote: »

Not at all low, they were negligent parents in my view, and I don't apologise for holding or expressing that view. And it is pertinent to this thread.

Very low. I am leaving this thread with the hope you show more empathy and compassion to your students.

poet123

mumps wrote: »

Very low. I am leaving this thread with the hope you show more empathy and compassion to your students.

I thought you might.;)

I do have sympathy for them, but that doesn't alter the facts.

zagfles

mumps wrote: »

Very low. I am leaving this thread with the hope you show more empathy and compassion to your students.

The poet-bot slated me earlier for using an example of a pregnant 14 year old! Very clever these bots, even a hypocrisy algorithm built in.

But you don't need to leave the thread, the Ignore list is a wonderful function (though somewhat defeated if posts are quoted- gentle hint)

Spendless

ermm the child that shouldn't be mentioned and her siblings were all under 4 years old. They also had an unlocked door!

poet123

zagfles wrote: »

The poet-bot slated me earlier for using an example of a pregnant 14 year old! Very clever these bots, even a hypocrisy algorithm built in.

But you don't need to leave the thread, the Ignore list is a wonderful function (though somewhat defeated if posts are quoted- gentle hint)

Ok, I'll run with it and take it as the compliment it is meant as:beer:

I slated you because the glee was apparent in your post, and the issue was unrelated. As someone else also pointed out.

The example of the McCann's leaving a young child home alone is completely pertinent to the thread, and I feel only sadness about what happened because of their negligence. Not hypocrisy at all, but I suppose you would choose to dress it up that way?

As for the ignore button, go for it:D if you feel the need.

Bot out!!:A

jellyhead

There's a world of difference between a 3 year old and a 9 year old with a mobile phone, so let's not go there.

poet123

jellyhead wrote: »

There's a world of difference between a 3 year old and a 9 year old with a mobile phone, so let's not go there.

There is a world of difference, but it is still pertinent, or at least as pertinent as Mumps suggesting that my 15 year old was as much at risk by being left home alone (with adults on call during the day and with him overnight) as a nine year old left home alone was.

neverdespairgirl

poet123 wrote: »

Actually they have now! But no, they hadn't, till you mentioned it and it was misconstrued!!

I was just thinking about the 1920s book Swallows and Amazons - 4 children, aged 7 (the youngest) to about 13 (the oldest) sailing on the lake, camping on their own on an island, cooking over a camp fire.

Their father gave his permission in a telegram quoted at the start of the book:

"Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown"